Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2005, Joe Touch wrote:
>
>> Not Sec 4.2.3 for individual submissions; that one talks about checking
>> for conflict, not editing for content.
>
>
> Have you taken a look at RFC 3922 ("The IESG and RFC Editor Documents:
> Procedures")? While these were previously also dutily reviewed for
> individual RFC-editor submissions, they are no longer. The IESG just
> produces a note to the RFC editor, and records its comments to the
> tracker (if any) -- in the interest of bringing up issues in the spec --
> and it's then up to the RFC editor to check whether a revision (and what
> kind) is needed or not, as long as the IESG disclaimer is included.
Agreed; this was the update to the procedure that Harald noted in Seoul;
it's too early to see if it is having the desired effect on individual
submission, but I'm hopeful.
>> Ditto for Sec 6.1.1-6.1.2, which talks about checking for consistency
>> and clarity, but not editing for other reasons.
>
> It also says, "technical quality".
Agreed, but in a general "this is junk" way.
IMO, IESG review is taken less as a high-level quality control and check
for coordination with the IETF as a whole, and more as an opportunity
for the IESG to provide individual review. Perhaps 3992 will quash that
for individual submissions, but not for WG submissions. But, as has been
pointed out, IESG members are overloaded; IESG review is sometimes the
first time they see a document and they sometimes want input at that point.
>> Were they to put their objections forth as individuals, it would be
>> necessary to recuse themselves from the process of conflict resolution,
>> because they have a vested interest in the outcome.
>
> If someone appeals the decision (this has happened), and it reaches the
> full IESG, the AD whose action is being appealed will recuse him/herself.
Why then? IMO, the issue here is that when an AD wants to provide
individual input - not general "below threshold" or "please check with
WG X" feedback - at that point (which is MOST of what 'discuss' is about
these days, IMO) the AD should NOT be able to raise a discuss, but
rather need to forward their comments to another AD as an individual. If
the other AD feels that the comments are not sufficient to halt process,
they should not, just as for any other individual submission.
Putting the 'discuss' in the hands of ADs who are providing last-minute
individual input is a problem that can (and should) be fixed.
Joe
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf